The CNN-USA Today Gallup poll asked the public, do you want a new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or someone who would vote to overturn it?

By better than two to one, Americans prefer a Supreme Court nominee who would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade -- and continue to give constitutional protection to abortion rights.

Even Republicans are divided on the issue. Nearly half want a justice who would uphold abortion rights.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56 percent of respondents nationwide favored keeping abortion legal in all or most cases. The survey of 1,082 adults, conducted in April 2005, showed that only 14 percent of those surveyed wanted to keep abortion illegal in all cases, with another 27 percent wanting most cases to be illegal.

Voters donâ€™t want the government and politicians involved in their choice about abortion. In a recent survey by The Mellman Group, 62 percent of respondents felt the government should not interfere with a womanâ€™s access to abortion. Only 33 percent believe the government should restrict access.

But what about the Supreme Court specifically, and its stance on Roe v. Wade?

Nearly 60 percent of Americans say that, if presented with an opportunity to appoint one or more new justices to the Supreme Court, President Bush should pick individuals who would uphold Roe.

The Associated Press/Ipsos-Public Affairs Poll, which surveyed a national sample of 1,000 adults last November, found that only three in 10 respondents (31 percent) favored nominating justices who would overturn Roe.

It's a fairly sure bet that the wingnuts won't like that. But reality never stopped them before. They're certain to start whining again about a potential filibuster. The only problem is that the people want a robust confirmation process:

Three-quarters of the respondents in a poll of 1,000 likely voters said that the Senate should examine each of the presidentâ€™s nominees carefully and make its own independent judgment. Only 24 percent thought that the Senate should just confirm whomever Bush puts forward.

In fact, maybe this is a good time to note that most people are against the radical conservatives' efforts to take away birth control from women:

When the debate expands beyond abortion, voters show overwhelming support for a number of issues impacting womenâ€™s reproductive rights, family planning and prevention of unintended pregnancies. Voters recently surveyed by Planned Parenthood Federation of America overwhelmingly (78 percent) favor requirements that schools teach sex education, and 79 percent favor access to emergency contraception (EC) for rape and incest victims.

A large majority (65 percent) favors EC for all women, and 66 percent said that health-insurance policies should cover contraceptives. Respondents further showed strong support (67 percent) for a law making it clear that contraception does not constitute abortion and should not be regulated by abortion legislation. Furthermore, in the recent debate over pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, only 40 percent of those surveyed agreed that pharmacists should be allowed to do so.

Now a lot of radical agitators will try to claim that the Republicans won the last election, and that means the people support their extremely radical views to take away women's control over their own bodies. But in fact, this past November people were not voting on the abortion issue:

In the months since November 2004, a host of commentators insisted that abortion had a negative impact on the election; some even blamed Democratic candidate John Kerryâ€™s loss on his support for abortion rights.

However, data collected by Lake Snell Perry & Associates for the nonpartisan network Votes for Women 2004 shows that the election issues about which voters most cared were the economy (23 percent), national security and terrorism (19 percent), and the war in Iraq (13 percent).

When voters were asked what made them decide their presidential choice, only 2 percent volunteered the issue of abortion. Among Kerry voters, less than 1 percent offered this as an issue. Among Bush voters, only 2 percent said abortion determined their vote for president.

The radical conservatives like to bellow and crow about "the will of the people," but here it's quite obvious that they are out of step with the American people. Will they listen? Undoubtedly, the Republicans will do all they can to appease the radical pseudo-Christian special interests who ultimately want a Christian theocracy (like Iran, only without the Koran).

Kos has been exploring core values of the Democrats over the past few days. While I commend the effort, I feel there's an essential aspect missing.

Coming late to this -- I've found most of the DKos atmosphere a bit abrasive and tesosterone-driven of late and have in general stayed away -- I've missed the discussion (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) so let's just cut to the chase: the grand conclusions:

Maybe it's just me, but I find "privacy" to be a very weak frame for a woman's sovereignty over her own body. "Privacy" suggests secrets. I don't see the issue as being about keeping secrets, but a matter of having control.

I consider a woman's control over her own body a matter of freedom from enslavement. I think we've fallen into a big trap by getting into debating "abortion," as if that were the issue. It's not. If you're against abortion, don't have one. A lot of people would never have an abortion. That's their own choice. But that does not mean that they automatically support State control over one's body.

If the state can force a woman to remain pregnant, then it becomes the state's decision, and that means, under the same premise:

The State can force an abortion

The State can sterilize people (including use of castration)

The State can regulate all behavior of pregnant women

The State can impose its will on people's bodies for other reasons

It's the stepping stone to eugenics. For example, what if the State decides it has a compelling interest to have people who have "the gay gene" sterilized? What if the State decides there are enough Hispanics in this country? What if decided that "welfare mothers" were too expensive and so mandated sterilization?

Are we going to lock up a pregnant woman if she lights a cigarette? Are we going to have pregnancy officers doing home checks to make sure pregnant women are eating their vegetables?

Should the State mandate vassectomies for men who do poorly in college or fail to pass the Presidential Physical Fitness tests?

Shall we hold criminal trials to determine the guilt or innocence of women who've miscarried? Shall men be arrested for masturbating and spilling precious seed?

Should we have political vetting so only the "good people" can reproduce? Should the State set up matchmaking programs so people with lower intelligence breed to produce workers to do grunt work?

You don't have to be "pro-abortion" in order to have some very strong reservations about the State's power over our bodies.

Many a mother reminds her growing daughter, from time to time as the youngster is better able to understand her own future and upcoming biological role, "girls get pregnant." I have a brother and I know boys are told "don't get girls pregnant."

Pregnancy may take two people, but once achieved, it is by definition, a strictly female process. There are indeed laws about paternity and child support and laws about a father's responsibility to his children, but the pregnancy - carrying the child and giving it birth - is what makes us females.

That means that 53-percent of the human race carries the young in their bodies - whether or not they choose to exercise that option. Sometimes women are infertile and that is a whole other issue I will not get sidetracked into, but what unites us as women - whether we have ever born children or not - is our collective and overarching social role and many laws about us are written with that biological reality as a backdrop. Many religious codes are written with that as a backdrop. Many social norms stem from that and while I readily agree men rape other men, the crime of rape has a particular significance when it comes to women.

Social institutions such as courtship - let alone marriage - have this biological reality as an under-pinning. Those opposed to "test tube babies" or who see cloning as dangerous and irresponsible reveal their own thoughts on the meta-message about the meaning of the womb.

And as many a mother will, mother will sit down with her daughter and in hushed tones and sober voice explain what happens when a girl lets a boy "have his way." In another era - and maybe even today - if a girl had given access to her birth vault to another, others would not want her and we're not just talking intercourse. A widow (or widowers, as this does include men) or divorced person will find "replacement" mates to sometimes be reluctant to take on the mate-and-brood.

A billion years back in the pre-Cambrian organic soup - or was it Eden, take your pick - simple cell division (like in the "eternal" amoeba) was replaced by sexual reproductions. It was then that everything changed profoundly. There now were "sexes" and sexual reproduction. Once the process was underway, it could not be willed to stop. Once the female was impregnated, short of a gestation malfunction or the female's death - the process ground inexorably to its conclusion.

For anyone still digging in their heels against the idea that women's equality is a core moral value, I recommend reading this post by Morgaine, where she takes on the idea that abortion is the heart and soul of women's rights.

What you didn't address, and what prompted my comment, is that this issue goes beyond whether or not a woman can have an abortion. It goes to whether or not women are people. We aren't talking about a political issue - we are talking about my uterus, and the fact that neither the Congress, nor any man, is authorized to negotiate the disposition of it. The only role of government in the matter should be to assure that my doctor is competent and the hospital up to standard. I am not the property of the state. I am a citizen of the state who is guaranteed a certain level of personal liberty that has so far not been acknowledged in our legal system.

But I would say this is a most-eloquent rebuttal to the assertions by Markos and other (mostly) men that women's equality is either (a) not part of the "important shit" or (b) not necessary.

If the State were to move in and claim sovereignty over men's penises and testicles, you can be damn sure that Kos and other male liberals would be howling. But they don't have to worry about such things, and thus "abortion" is just ground taken by liberals, and to them the only reason to support "choice" is because Republicans want to take it away. The rest of what so often are called "women's issues" are just too fringe for them.

And thus the miss the very heart of the matter when it comes to this issue.

The ironically self-named "pro-life" crowd are actually advocating the enslavement of all women who get pregnant, making them wards of the state. If they really wanted to eliminate abortions, they would be advocating better birth control and family planning services, education and access, so that unwanted pregnancies are brought to a minimum.

But reducing abortions is not their goal. Enslaving women is. They just can't stand the idea that women might have sex without the "punishment" of pregnancy. So they try over and over to pass laws banning sex education and availability of birth control to teenaged women, who account for a huge percentage of unwanted pregnancies. And they pass out pamphlets that make ludicrous claims like condoms cause cancer. And they pass laws allowing pharmacists to play doctor and deny even a married woman's prescription for birth control. And they keep birth control from being covered by Medicare and Medicaid (while supporting coverage of hard-on meds like Viagra). Everything they do is about disempowering women and removing our ability to take care of ourselves and our own bodies.

What the women-are-baby-machines-belonging-to-the-state thinkers don't seem to realize is that it works both ways. If the state can step in and force a woman into breeder servitude, then by the same authority it can also prevent a woman from ever breeding. It could even mandate abortions.

How would these folks feel about state-mandated sterilization? How would these folks feel about state-mandated abortion? That is where their logic leads.

What if you want to have a baby, but the state has decided that, no, you are not worthy?Reproductive rights include the right to reproduce, too.

Do we really want to have everyone's family choices up for approval or denial by majority rule?